Age of Reason or Not? Change or Not?

Tags: Reason-Descartes, Limits to Reason-Hume, Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, Reason or Not, Change or Not?

Age of Reason or Not? Change or Not? NY Times David Brooks, May 24, 2010 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/opinion/25brooks.html?src=me&ref=general ... Their great model was Descartes. He aimed to begin human understanding anew. He’d discard the accumulated prejudices of the past and build from the ground up, erecting one logical certainty upon another.

What Descartes was doing for knowledge, others would do for politics: sweep away the old precedents and write new constitutions based on reason. This was the aim of the French Revolution. ...

But there wasn’t just one Enlightenment, headquartered in France. There was another, headquartered in Scotland and Britain and led by David Hume, Adam Smith and Edmund Burke. As Gertrude Himmelfarb wrote in her 2004 book, “The Roads to Modernity,” if the members of the French Enlightenment focused on the power of reason, members of the British Enlightenment emphasized its limits.

They put more emphasis on our sentiments. People are born with natural desires to be admired and to be worthy of admiration. They are born with moral emotions, a sense of fair play and benevolence. They are also born with darker passions, like self-love and tribalism, which mar rationalist enterprises. We are emotional creatures first and foremost, and politics should not forget that.

These two views of human nature produced different attitudes toward political change, articulated most brilliantly by Thomas Paine and Edmund Burke. Their views are the subject of a superb dissertation by Yuval Levin at the University of Chicago called “The Great Law of Change.”

As Levin shows, Paine believed that societies exist in an “eternal now.” That something has existed for ages tells us nothing about its value. The past is dead and the living should use their powers of analysis to sweep away existing arrangements when necessary, and begin the world anew. He even suggested that laws should expire after 30 years so each new generation could begin again.

Paine saw the American and French Revolutions as models for his sort of radical change. In each country, he felt, the revolutionaries deduced certain universal truths about the rights of man and then designed a new society to fit them.

Burke, a participant in the British Enlightenment, had a different vision of change. He believed that each generation is a small part of a long chain of history. We serve as trustees for the wisdom of the ages and are obliged to pass it down, a little improved, to our descendents. That wisdom fills the gaps in our own reason, as age-old institutions implicitly contain more wisdom than any individual could have.

Burke was horrified at the thought that individuals would use abstract reason to sweep away arrangements that had stood the test of time. He believed in continual reform, but reform is not novelty. You don’t try to change the fundamental substance of an institution. You try to modify from within, keeping the good parts and adjusting the parts that aren’t working.

If you try to re-engineer society on the basis of abstract plans, Burke argued, you’ll end up causing all sorts of fresh difficulties, because the social organism is more complicated than you can possibly know. We could never get things right from scratch.

Burke also supported the American Revolution, but saw it in a different light than Paine. He believed the British Parliament had recklessly trampled upon the ancient liberties the colonists had come to enjoy. The Americans were seeking to preserve what they had.

We Americans have never figured out whether we are children of the French or the British Enlightenment. Was our founding a radical departure or an act of preservation? This was a bone of contention between Jefferson and Hamilton, and it’s a bone of contention today, both between parties and within each one.

Today, if you look around American politics you see self-described conservative radicals who seek to sweep away 100 years of history and return government to its preindustrial role. You see self-confident Democratic technocrats who have tremendous faith in the power of government officials to use reason to control and reorganize complex systems. You see polemicists of the left and right practicing a highly abstract and ideological Jacobin style of politics.

The children of the British Enlightenment are in retreat. Yet there is the stubborn fact of human nature. The Scots were right, and the French were wrong. And out of that truth grows a style of change, a style that emphasizes modesty, gradualism and balance.

Claims about sunscreen's effectiveness come under scrutiny

Tags: Effective Sunscreens Guide, Children, US Regulatory Agencies, Dermatologists, Conflict of Interests,

One article in the New York Times I read several years ago hinted that Bush/Cheney are loading the Civil Service agency with their Boys and Girls to thwart regulations after the Republicans are gone. They made sure that the government agencies were defanged so they could not interfere with corporate profits.

FEMA went from the Clinton's best ever to the worst ever by severely cutting its budget causing many of the best to leave. The Clinton's went from a badly damaged Veteran's Hospital system to a superb one. Bush, Jr. tried to destroy it by forcing doctors to leave and cutting its budget severely leaving it so damaged that it has a problem serving veterans on a timely basis. Obama had to double the employees to try to make autos safer. I wonder if the Bush rogues in the Minerals Management post allowed drilling permits without checking? Of course Obama gets the blame! As it is apparent, the government has no ability or equipment to do much about deep water oil leaks.

The Republicans have been purposely stopping the appointment of leaders to almost all of these regulatory posts to keep them operating without leaders and those who were picked could not possibly learn their job in such a short time. I could go on and on!

Remember bad parents have an unusually big effect on their children. I suspect most of the ultra-corporate and conservative Supreme Court justices had punishing parents. I know that Justice Thomas did when he lived with his grandfather who probably beat him a lot.

One of the problems getting good sunscreen products in the USA is that Bush kept out the best by FDA rejection and not granting patents of the best sunscreens. Another problem is the many top dermatologists are hired as consultants to sunscreen manufacturers. For example, Merck, one of our top drug maker, also makes Coppertone sunscreens.

Remember UVA can penetrate your skin as easily as glass windows. Because there is no guidelines on UVA, we have no idea how good sunscreens are except by experience.

"Your body makes vitamin D when it's exposed to sunlight. In fact, 80 to 100 percent of the vitamin D we need comes from the sun. The sun exposure that makes our skin a bit red (called 1 minimum erythemal dose) produces the equivalent of 10,000 to 25,000 international units (IU) of vitamin D in our bodies.

The problem is that most of us aren't exposed to enough sunlight.

Overuse of sunscreen is one reason. While these product help protect against skin cancer--they also block a whopping 97 percent of your body's vitamin D production.

If you live in a northern climate, you're not getting enough sun (and therefore vitamin D), especially during winter. And you're probably not eating enough of the few natural dietary sources of vitamin D: fatty wild fish like mackerel, herring and cod liver oil or porcini mushrooms.

In addition, aging skin produces less vitamin D--the average 70-year-old person creates only 25 percent of the vitamin D that a 20 year-old does. Skin color makes a difference, too. People with dark skin also produce less vitamin D. And I've seen very severe deficiencies in Orthodox Jews and Muslims who keep themselves covered all the time." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/vitamin-d-why-you-are-pro_b_585311.html

Tuesday, Consumer Reports will issue its sunscreen guide.

The EWG, Environmental Working Group, an advocacy group that has waged a four-year campaign promoting strict sun-safety standards, slammed the majority of the 1,400 products it tested. It recommends only 39 of 500 beach and sport sunscreens, primarily because of what it called "a surge in exaggerated SPF claims above 50" and concerns about ingredients in the products.

"Hats, clothing and shade are still the only completely reliable sun protection," said Jane Houlihan, EWG's vice president for research.

In fact, the long-delayed FDA rules would update labels to stress the importance of a comprehensive approach to sun protection that encourages seeking shade and covering up.

Sunscreen can help protect against sunburn, but contrary to what most people think, it hasn't yet been shown to prevent skin cancer or premature skin aging, according to the FDA. ...

A product labeled SPF 15 blocks about 93 percent of the sun's UVB rays; an SPF 50 protects against about 98 percent, said Dr. Henry Lim, chairman of the department of dermatology at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit. ...

A product labeled SPF 15 blocks about 93 percent of the sun's UVB rays; an SPF 50 protects against about 98 percent, said Dr. Henry Lim ...

UVA (ultraviolet light with a longer wavelength) radiation facilitates tanning but also can damage the DNA of cells deep within the skin, contributing to skin cancer and premature aging.

Though many products are labeled "broad spectrum," consumers can't currently tell how much protection a sunscreen provides against UVA rays. The Environmental Working Group reported it found that one popular children's sunscreen marketed as SPF 100 had a UVA (UVB, not UVA) protection factor of 9. ...

One sunscreen ingredient flagged as risky by the Environmental Working Group is oxybenzone, which boosts UVA protection and is FDA approved. The group cites lab studies suggesting it has an estrogenic effect and can be absorbed into the bloodstream.

"It's very preliminary but troubling," Houlihan said.

Others say absorption alone isn't enough to raise an alarm. "I'm not closing my mind on the issue, but based on the data I don't see any concern with oxybenzone," said Dr. Lim. ...

Sprays and powders: The Environmental Working Group recommends against these products, which can be accidentally inhaled. Others say there's little risk of harm. "I wouldn't recommend spraying sunscreen into your nose, but the amount you'll inhale is no worse than walking behind a diesel bus," said Dr. David Leffell, chief of dermatologic surgery and cutaneous oncology at the Yale School of Medicine and a consultant for Coppertone. (Merck sunscreen) ...

Vitamin D: Don't forget, the body needs sunlight to make this vital chemical. The National Institutes of Health suggests five to 30 minutes of sun exposure between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. several times a week on the face, arms, legs and back during the warmer months. After that, seek shade, cover up, wear a hat and sunglasses and use sunscreen. Speaking of covering up, the FDA has not advised using sunscreen under regular clothing. It also doesn't regulate clothing that claims to offer UV protection.

Nanoparticles: Sunscreen labels don't say whether the products contain nanoparticles. Studies have shown that nano-scale ingredients don't penetrate healthy skin, so consumer use should be minimal. But if you want to avoid them until more is known, look for the white-colored zinc or titanium oxide products. If mineral-based sunscreens are clear, they likely have nanoparticles.

Combo products: Insect repellants aren't necessarily safe for frequent application. But you do have to keep reapplying sunscreen. So you may want to avoid combination products. (Swallowing nanoparticles can be very dangerous. Avoid. Jim)

Retinyl palmitate: The EWG recommends avoiding products with a vitamin A derivative called retinyl palmitate. Preliminary data suggest topical applications can enhance the rate of UV-induced skin tumor formation in lab mice, said Dr. Allan Conney, director of the Susan Lehman Cullman Laboratory for Cancer Research at Rutgers University. Epidemiological studies would be needed to determine whether humans are at risk. Complete article: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2010/05/24/1445560/claims-about-sunscreens-effectiveness.html

Vitamin D: Why You Are Probably NOT Getting Enough and How That Makes You Sick

Tags: Low Vitamin D, Linked to many cancers, colon, prostate, breast and ovarian cancer, high blood pressure, heart disease, diabetes, depression,(i) fibromyalgia, chronic muscle pain, bone loss and autoimmune diseases like multiple sclerosis, lupus, religion, Optimal levels D, reducing inflammation, boosting mood, colds, flu, muscles pain, osteoporosis, Multiple Sclerosis, type 1 diabetes, inflammatory bowel disease, depends on skin color, genetics of vitamin D efficiency (not same for Whites and Blacks),

Finally an article with both credibility and clarity! One of the few articles where I had to make comments to try to clarify what is extremely important about taking vitamin D. Best article yet! I recommend you go to the Huff Post link below to get the full story.

Jim Kawakami, May 22, 2010, http://jimboguy.blogspot.com

Huffington Post Mark Hyman, MD May 22, 2010 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/vitamin-d-why-you-are-pro_b_585311.html

What vitamin may we need in amounts up to 25 times higher than the government recommends for us to be healthy?

What vitamin deficiency affects 70-80 percent of the population, is almost never diagnosed and has been linked to many cancers, high blood pressure, heart disease, diabetes, depression,(i) fibromyalgia, chronic muscle pain, bone loss and autoimmune diseases like multiple sclerosis?(ii) ...

Overall, 7.6 million, or nine percent, of US children were vitamin-D deficient, and another 50.8 million, or 61 percent, had insufficient levels of this important vitamin in their blood.

The average blood level of vitamin D was 25 ng/dl for Caucasians and 16 ng/dl for African Americans. The optimal level is 45 ng/dl and requires about 3000-4000 IU a day of vitamin D3 -- 10 times current recommendations. If our whole population achieved a minimum level of 45 ng/dl, we would have 400,000 fewer premature deaths per year. There would be a reduction of cancer by 35 percent, type 2 diabetes by 33 percent and all causes of mortality by seven percent. (iv)

The economic burden due to vitamin D insufficiency in the United States is $40-$53 billion per year. This can be corrected for pennies a person per day. ...

How Vitamin D Regulates Your Cells and Genes

Vitamin D has a dramatic impact on the health and function of your cells. It reduces cellular growth (which promotes cancer) and improves cell differentiation (which puts cells into an anti-cancer state). That makes vitamin D one of the most potent cancer inhibitors--and explains why vitamin D deficiency has been linked to colon, prostate, breast and ovarian cancer.

But what's even more fascinating is how vitamin D regulates and controls genes.

It acts on a cellular docking station called a receptor that then sends messages to our genes. That's how vitamin D controls so many different functions--like preventing cancer, reducing inflammation, boosting mood, easing muscle aches and fibromyalgia and building bones.

Vitamin D also helps prevent the flu and colds and infections. In an observational study of Finnish soldiers, those with 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels higher than 16 ng/mL (40 nmol/L) had fewer respiratory infections than those with lower levels.(v) More recently, in a double-blind randomized controlled trial involving school girls, supplementation with 1200 IU/d of vitamin D3 during the wintertime significantly reduced influenza A infections.(vi) ...

Your body makes vitamin D when it's exposed to sunlight. In fact, 80 to 100 percent of the vitamin D we need comes from the sun. The sun exposure that makes our skin a bit red (called 1 minimum erythemal dose) produces the equivalent of 10,000 to 25,000 international units (IU) of vitamin D in our bodies.

The problem is that most of us aren't exposed to enough sunlight.

Overuse of sunscreen is one reason. While these product help protect against skin cancer--they also block a whopping 97 percent of your body's vitamin D production.

If you live in a northern climate, you're not getting enough sun (and therefore vitamin D), especially during winter. And you're probably not eating enough of the few natural dietary sources of vitamin D: fatty wild fish like mackerel, herring and cod liver oil or porcini mushrooms.

In addition, aging skin produces less vitamin D--the average 70-year-old person creates only 25 percent of the vitamin D that a 20 year-old does. Skin color makes a difference, too. People with dark skin also produce less vitamin D. And I've seen very severe deficiencies in Orthodox Jews and Muslims who keep themselves covered all the time.

With all these causes of vitamin D deficiency, you can see why supplementing with enough of this vitamin is so important. Unfortunately, you aren't really being told the right amount of vitamin D to take.

The government recommends 200 to 600 IU of vitamin a day. This is the amount you need to prevent rickets, a disease caused by vitamin D deficiency. But the real question is: How much vitamin D do we need for OPTIMAL health? How much do we need to prevent autoimmune diseases, high blood pressure, fibromyalgia, chronic muscle pain,(vii) depression, osteoporosis and even cancer?

The answer is: Much more than you think.

Recent research by vitamin D pioneer Dr. Michael Holick, Professor of Medicine, Physiology, and Dermatology at Boston University School of Medicine, recommends intakes of up to 2,000 IU a day -- or enough to keep blood levels of 25 hydroxy vitamin D at between 75 to 125 nmol/L (nanomoles per liter).(viii) That may sound high, but it's still safe: Lifeguards have levels of 250 nmol/L without toxicity.

Our government currently recommends 2,000 IU as the upper limit for vitamin D -- but even that may not be high enough for our sun-deprived population! In countries where sun exposure provides the equivalent of 10,000 IU a day and people have vitamin D blood levels of 105 to 163 nmol/L, autoimmune diseases(like multiple sclerosis, type 1 diabetes, inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatoid arthritis and lupus) are uncommon. (Divide nmol/L by 2.5 to get ng/ml, the units used in USA. Jim)

Don't be scared that amounts that high are toxic: One study of healthy young men receiving 10,000 IU of vitamin D for 20 weeks showed no toxicity.(ix)

You might have seen a recent study in the Journal of the American Medical Association that shows that a single high dose of 500,000 Units of vitamin D3 (one year's worth of vitamin D) increased the risk of falls and fractures in elderly woman.(x) Does this mean that vitamin D doesn't prevent fractures or falls? Absolutely not! (Yes, many smart scientists can be very very stupid as I found when I worked among Ivy League Harvard and MIT scientists and engineers. Jim)

The design and logic of the study were completely wrong. As a friend once said, "The well meaning are often ill doing."

Imagine a study that gave people a year's worth of vitamin A, or iron (both are nutrients that are stored in the body like vitamin D) in one dose. The vitamin A would cause immediate liver failure and death. In fact, the way the Inuit used to kill explorers in the Arctic was to feed them polar bear liver, which gave them toxic doses of vitamin A. A year's worth of iron in one dose would cause severe intestinal problems and iron poisoning.

Biologically we understand why a single high dose of vitamin D may cause problems. A single high dose induces protective mechanisms that reduce the available vitamin D by increasing the activity of enzymes that cause the vitamin D to be broken down by the body. (xi) The body requires a balance of the right nutrients at the right dose at the right time. No one would eat a year's worth of anything in one day and expect it to be healthy. ...

6 Tips for Getting the Right Amount of Vitamin D

Unless you're spending all your time at the beach, eating 30 ounces of wild salmon a day, or downing 10 tablespoons of cod liver oil a day, supplementing with vitamin D is essential. The exact amount needed to get your blood levels to the optimal range (100 to160 nmol/L) will vary depending on your age, how far north you live, how much time you spend in the sun and even the time of the year. But once you reach optimal levels, you'll be amazed at the results.

For example, one study found that vitamin D supplementation could reduce the risk of getting type 1 diabetes by 80 percent.(xii) In the Nurses' Health Study (a study of more than 130,000 nurses over 3 decades), vitamin D supplementation reduced the risk of multiple sclerosis by 40 percent.(xiii),(xiv)

I've seen many patients with chronic muscle aches and pains and fibromyalgia who are vitamin D deficient--a phenomenon that's been documented in studies. Their symptoms improve when they are treated with vitamin D. A Danish study of Arabic women with fibromyalgia found significant vitamin D deficiency and recovery with replacement of vitamin D.(xv)

Finally, vitamin D has been shown to help prevent and treat osteoporosis. In fact, it's even more important than calcium. That's because your body needs vitamin D to be able to properly absorb calcium. Without adequate levels of vitamin D, the intestine absorbs only 10 to 15 percent of dietary calcium. Research shows that the bone-protective benefits of vitamin D keep increasing with the dose.

So here is my advice for getting optimal levels of vitamin D:

1. Get tested for 25 OH vitamin D. The current ranges for "normal" are 25 to 137 nmol/L or 10 to 55 ng/ml. These are fine if you want to prevent rickets -- but NOT for optimal health. In that case, the range should be 100 to 160 nmol/L or 40 to 65 ng/ml. In the future, we may raise this "optimal" level even higher. ... Five more important tips and medical references http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/vitamin-d-why-you-are-pro_b_585311.html

Eating Processed Meat, such as bacon, sausage or processed deli meats: 42% Higher Risk Heart Disease

Tags: Processed Meats, Heart Disease, Greater than Meat, Harvard, Additives Harm, 42% Higher Risk

ScienceDaily (May 17, 2010) — http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100517161130.htm In a new study, researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) have found that eating processed meat, such as bacon, sausage or processed deli meats, was associated with a 42% higher risk of heart disease and a 19% higher risk of type 2 diabetes. In contrast, the researchers did not find any higher risk of heart disease or diabetes among individuals eating unprocessed red meat, such as from beef, pork, or lamb. This work is the first systematic review and meta-analysis of the worldwide evidence for how eating unprocessed red meat and processed meat relates to risk of cardiovascular diseases and diabetes.

The study appears online May 17, 2010, on the website of the journalCirculation."Although most dietary guidelines recommend reducing meat consumption, prior individual studies have shown mixed results for relationships between meat consumption and cardiovascular diseases and diabetes," said Renata Micha, a research fellow in the department of epidemiology at HSPH and lead author of the study. "Most prior studies also did not separately consider the health effects of eating unprocessed red versus processed meats." ...

The researchers defined unprocessed red meat as any unprocessed meat from beef, lamb or pork, excluding poultry. Processed meat was defined as any meat preserved by smoking, curing or salting, or with the addition of chemical preservatives; examples include bacon, salami, sausages, hot dogs or processed deli or luncheon meats. Vegetable or seafood protein sources were not evaluated in these studies.

The results showed that, on average, each 50 gram (1.8 oz) daily serving of processed meat (about 1-2 slices of deli meats or 1 hot dog) was associated with a 42% higher risk of developing heart disease and a 19% higher risk of developing diabetes. In contrast, eating unprocessed red meat was not associated with risk of developing heart disease or diabetes. Too few studies evaluated the relationship between eating meat and risk of stroke to enable the researchers to draw any conclusions. ...

"When we looked at average nutrients in unprocessed red and processed meats eaten in the United States, we found that they contained similar average amounts of saturated fat and cholesterol. In contrast, processed meats contained, on average, 4 times more sodium and 50% more nitrate preservatives," said Micha. "This suggests that differences in salt and preservatives, rather than fats, might explain the higher risk of heart disease and diabetes seen with processed meats, but not with unprocessed red meats."

Dietary sodium (salt) is known to increase blood pressure, a strong risk factor for heart disease. In animal experiments, nitrate preservatives can promote atherosclerosis and reduce glucose tolerance, effects which could increase risk of heart disease and diabetes.

(A bad heart is commonly twice as large as a healthy heart. Salt independently causes the thickening the heart walls. So once Obama's bill starts, you will be able to get tests free of charge with insurance or Medicare that helps you maintain good health. Obama will supply information of best practices to physicians, but because humans are not all the same, the final judgement is left to the doctors. Now after 17 years only 50% of doctors are implementing them. Obama hopes to shorten the time frame. Also best practices can change with more information. I think about 5,000 medical news comes out every day, so doctors cannot practice medicine and keep up with everything. ... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100517161130.htm Search www.doctoroz.com Jim)

Vit. D: Pregnancy, Breast, Libido, Autism, Schizophrenia, Depression, Heart, Stroke, Diabetes, High BP, Acne

Tags: Vit. D: Pregnancy, Breast, Libido, Autism, Schizophrenia, Depression, Heart, Stroke, Diabetes, High BP, Acne

Oil is in the news now, but very little about the real health benefits of Americans using less sunscreen and greatly increasing the vitamin D3 daily to at least 2,000 IU and up to 5,000 IU.

As I mentioned in the past, vitamin D really boosted my testosterone level from normal for someone my age to levels seen in teenagers. Yes, it has really increased my Libido as some rumors in the news has mentioned.

The establishment is always conservative to preserve their place in the hierarchy.

I was cursed or blessed with a level of independence not accepted in our current society so I am generally skeptical of those who have the gift (inherited) of gab and are part of the Establishment.

We have seen in our political debates that confirmed facts have no place in what they say. Republicans and the media are now blaming Obama for screwing up on the oil spill now. First let me remind you that several years ago the NY Times has an obscured article that mentioned that Obama was really worried about Bush putting in ideological troops into our civil service system whose employees are hard to remove. That is why the Republicans refused to approve a competent and honest leader for the Oils and Mineral unit which has strong control of off-shore drilling requirements. Apparently these Bush Boys violated all protocol and ignored the role of other agencies regulating off-shore oil rigs. The Swiss company flew the flag of the Marshal Islands as reported by Rachel Maddow http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#37141886

The blind adherence by doctors, scientists, and others to the role of sunscreen UVB use causing all sorts of illnesses including osteoporosis without realizing that vitamin D is critical not only for bones but for our overall health including our immune system.

Here are some of the letters to Dr. John Cannell of www.vitaminDcouncil.com from all over the world seeking council on vitamin D by medical doctors and others whose children have serious health problems including acne for teenagers.

Suzy, give Mike this because his website does not accommodate more than one page long e-mails. Thanks!

Jim Kawakami, May 14, 2010, http://jimboguy.blogspot.com

Vitamin D Council www.vitaminDcouncil.org

John Cannell, MD

Executive Director

Vitamin D Council

You may reproduce this newsletter as long as you properly and prominently attribute it source. Please reproduce it, post it on Internet sites, and forward it to your friends. Remember, we are a non-profit and rely on your donations to publish our newsletter, maintain our website, and pursue our objectives. Send your tax-deductible contributions to: The Vitamin D Council

Dear Dr. Cannell:

I have a four-month-old infant and I am worried because I only took a prenatal vitamin during my pregnancy but no extra vitamin D. I am breastfeeding but I give him formula as well as breast milk. Do I need to give him extra vitamin D?

Jeanne, England

Dear Jeanne:

Yes, you do. In fact, CDC researchers just announced that less than 25% of U.S. infants are getting the outdated recommended amount of vitamin D (400 IU/day). I suspect the situation is worse in England. Dr. Cria Perrine and her colleagues at the CDC analyzed questionnaires sent to over 15,000 mothers with infants ranging in age from 1-10 months.

Perrine CG et al.Adherence to Vitamin D Recommendations Among US Infants. Pediatrics. 2010 Mar 22. [Epub ahead of print]

The breast milk of vitamin D deficient mothers contains little vitamin D and virtually all mothers are deficient, thus breast milk usually has little vitamin D. Dr. Perrine found that only about 10% of breast-feeding infants are supplemented to meet the 400 IU/day recommendation; more surprising, only about 30% of formula-fed infants were getting 300 IU/day, mainly because few infants consume the one liter of formula needed to do so.

One bad sign, Dr. Perrine reiterated the 1999 American Academy of Pediatrics sunshine warning, which amounts to child abuse, stating, “children under the age of 6 months should be kept out of the sun altogether and that those aged 6 months or older should wear protective clothing and sunscreen to minimize sun exposure.” One good sign, WebMD mentioned that adequate amounts of vitamin D might prevent respiratory infections in infants.

Boyles S. CDC: Babies Don't Get Enough Vitamin D. WebMD, March 22, 2010

The vitamin D Council recommends that breastfeeding infants under one year of age take 1,000 IU/day unless the mother takes 5,000 IU/day, in which case the infants will get all they need from breast milk. Formula fed infants need an extra 600 IU/day. Carlson Ddrops, either 400, 1,000 or 2,000 IU/drop are available at most health food stores and on the internet; they are an easy way to keep your infant vitamin D sufficient. I understand that similar dropper products are available in England’s health food stores. By the way, Dr. Carol Wagner and Bruce Hollis have just presented their data about pregnant women and vitamin D.

Boyles S. High Doses of Vitamin D May Cut Pregnancy Risks: Study Shows 4,000 IU a Day of Vitamin D May Reduce Preterm Birth and Other Risks. WebMd, May 4, 2010. Their study had two treatment arms; pregnant women took either 2,000 IU/day and 4,000 IU/day. In Belgium, Dr. Hollis reported their findings forced them to discontinue the 2,000 IU/day treatment arm for ethical reasons: it was associated with more obstetrical complications than the 4,000 IU/day treatment arm.

John Cannell

Dear Dr. Cannell:

Is there anything out there about vitamin D and libido? I am asking because I have noticed an increase in my libido (I am a 48-year-old male who has been getting 5,000 IU/day shipped to me in France from Bio Tech Pharmacal for about a year.)

Philippe, France

Dear Philippe:

I know of no studies measuring male libido and vitamin D but Dr. Wehr and colleagues, at the Medical University of Graz in Austria, just published a surprising study showing that testosterone levels are directly associated with vitamin D levels (measured with the DiaSorin technique) and testosterone levels vary with the seasons, in concert with vitamin D levels. Furthermore, the men with very low testosterone levels had very low vitamin D levels. This study does not prove, like any association study, that vitamin D increases testosterone levels. It may be that sun-exposure in the summer is responsible for both higher vitamin D levels and higher testosterone levels.

Wehr E et al. Association of vitamin D status with serum androgen levels in men. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2009 Dec 29. [Epub ahead of print]

By the way, the New York Daily News got it wrong, nothing in the Wehr study talks about vitamin D increasing male libido.

Dominguez R. Suntanning, and the doses of vitamin D it provides, found to boost male sex drive: study. February 2nd 2010

John Cannell

Dear Dr. Cannell:

I work with the Somali immigrant community in Ottawa. If you see how healthy these immigrants are when they come here and how terrible their health is after a few years it is hard to see how it could be anything but vitamin D. Why do the health officials in Canada do nothing?

Gail, Ottawa

Dear Gail:

What is going on in Ottawa is a crime against people of color, just as what is going on against African Americans in the USA is a crime. It is not just autism, but schizophrenia, depression, heart attack, stroke, diabetes, and hypertension, are all diseases associated with vitamin D deficiency and also associated with dark skin in temperate latitudes.

Starved for Sunlight Immigrants struggle with declining health. CBC News, 2/17/2010

African Americans die almost eight years younger than Whites do, due to the diseases of vitamin D deficiency. I hoped the Obama administration might do something, but so far nothing. Perhaps we should file our civil rights complaint again, like the one we filed in 2005, which then Attorney General Alberto Gonzales summarily dismissed:

http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/PDFs/2005pr-doj-civil-rights-complaint.pdf

Dear Eric:

Isotretinoin or 13-cis-Retinoic Acid (Accutane in the USA) is a retinoid used in severe acne and rosacea as well as in cancer chemotherapy. It may have the same effects on the vitamin D receptor as other retinols. It certainly interferes with vitamin D metabolism.

Rødland O, et al. Serum levels of vitamin D metabolites in isotretinoin-treated acne patients. Acta Derm Venereol. 1992;72(3):217-9.

For those taking Isotretinoin for cancer, continue doing what your oncologist says to do, but also get your 25(OH)D to at least 100 ng/ml. If you are taking Isotretinoin for acne, my advice is to stop the Isotretinoin and take adequate doses of vitamin D.

In 1938, Dr. Merlin Maynard showed vitamin D helped acne more than one of the most effective treatments of all time, x-ray treatment. You can download his entire paper for free.

Maynard MT. Vitamin D in acne, a comparison with x-ray treatment. California and Western Medicine: 49 (2);127-132

Dr. Maynard wrote beautifully:

There is probably no skin disease of greater importance to the human race than acne. It is undoubtedly our commonest skin disease, and it is rare that any individual reaches maturity without having had it in one of its phases. It is a disease of considerable economic importance, as the disfiguring scars of a severe case are never completely obliterated. It is also a disease of youth. It attains its most noxious form at the time the individual first has to earn his own living. It is undoubtedly responsible for many failures in getting business positions. It is also the basis for inferiority complexes and discouragement in young people.

Dr. Maynard published a long case series. In his earlier days, he used x-ray treatment for acne, but when he started using viosterol (vitamin D2) he stopped using x-ray treatment. In reviewing his cases, he found x-ray treatment led to favorable results 48% of the time but vitamin D did so 76% of the time; he used between 5,000 and 14,000 IU per day. Vitamin D3 may work even better than D2, if acne patients take adequate doses, like 10,000 IU/day with frequent 25(OH)D levels.

In summary, he said:

I believe I may say that at no time in my dermatological experience have I felt such complete satisfaction with a treatment as I have with the cases of this series. I know that vitamin D is an imperfect weapon to slay this disfiguring disease, but it undoubtedly gives one a feeling of being well defended. From the patients' viewpoint, it has left little to be desired, as they find themselves improving, both in appearance and in general well-being. Many have expressed the sentiment, ‘Never felt better.’

In 2008, the mechanism of action of vitamin D in the skin was the subject of a lengthy review:

Schauber J, Gallo RL. The vitamin D pathway: a new target for control of the skin's immune response? Exp Dermatol. 2008 Aug;17(8):633-9.

Theoretically, rosacea should not respond to vitamin D, just the opposite, but readers have told me it does. However, if you have been on Isotretinoin, it may take months or years for the excessive vitamin A to get out of your system. The excess vitamin A may continue to compete for the vitamin D’s receptors attention and, until the vitamin A is gone, one may not see the full effects of vitamin D. By the way, just ask any acne patient if their acne gets better after a week of sunning at the beach.

John Cannell

Dear Dr. Cannell:

I am a naturopath in Montréal, Canada. I work primarily in mental health. I did a search on MDConsult recently for "Differential diagnosis of psychosis." One of the differential diagnoses in the list was vitamin D deficiency. I am unable to find any research that supports that, and that list had no citations. Do you know anything about it?

I have a patient who recently experienced some of the most extreme psychosis of his life. During that time, I measured his Vitamin D. It was too low to be detected! I started him on 5,000 IU per day and had measured it a few months later, when he was doing much better, and it was 22 ng/ml. I thought there was a relationship between the deficiency and the psychosis, but could not find anything on PubMed or anywhere else about the connection.

Any thoughts on that?

Melissa, Canada

Dear Melissa:

This is good news; however, I am not aware of any papers on the treatment of psychosis with vitamin D. At my hospital, which now has a policy to test all new patients for vitamin D deficiency, several of us have noticed that a few psychotic patients seem to get remarkably better on vitamin D, and others can reduce the dose of their meds, once their vitamin D deficiency is treated. However, the vast majority of patients must stay on meds or they relapse. However, no one, to my knowledge, has treated psychotic patients with pharmaceutical doses, like 20,000 IU per day. It would not surprise me at all if researchers found that dose to be effective treatment in some cases of psychosis.

The scientific community has never researched the issue of using vitamin D as a drug, that is, as a pharmaceutical. If one was free to use pharmaceutical doses, as psychiatrists in private practice are free to do, they could rapidly lend some light to the subject by treating psychotic patients with both antipsychotic meds and with 20,000 IU per day and carefully follow 25(OH)D, calcium, and clinical course. I suspect they would find a vitamin D treatment effect. If they did such a case series, I would publish their reports in this newsletter, be they negative or positive.

John Cannell

Dear Seth:

Yes, divide nmol/L by 2.5 to get ng/ml. In the USA, all labs report 25(OH)D levels as ng/ml so no division is needed. As far as our website goes, the conversion is now on it, thank you. The English company Minervation is well into a two-year project of greatly improving our website. Dr. William Grant, a member of our Board, is working closely with Minervation to get the science right. The current website began in 2003 when I spent several months writing it and my son then published it on the internet, so it is far from perfect.

John Cannell